Don't Forget the Means

In honor or Martin Luther King Day, I've been leafing back through my copy of his book, Why We Can't Wait.  I'm tempted to post the chapter Letter from Birmingham Jail in its entirety, since it stands as a wonderful synthesis of so much of his philosophy, but instead, I'll link you to it here.  It is easily googled (this really is a seminal text), if for any reason this link is not to your liking.  The book as a whole is magnificent, and his writing is as lucid and inspiring as his speeches.

As I remarked in an earlier entry, MLK jr. is well on the way to being a national hero.  Some might claim giving him his own day is evidence he already is, but there is still some controversy around it.  Nonetheless I'd say a growing majority of the nation recognizes that his tireless and inspiring work played a principle role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  He is recognized as one of the twentieth centuries great thinkers and orators, his words made all the more impressive by having contributed to impressive results. I think there is a growing admiration for what King accomplished, but I fear how he and his followers accomplished it is getting swept under the carpet.  

After resisting the urge to post one entire chapter of his book, indulge me while I quote him extensively from an earlier chapter.  

Fortunately, history does not pose problems without eventually producing solutions.  The disenchanted, the disadvantaged and the disinherited seem, at times of deep crisis, to summon up some sort of genius that enables them to perceive and capture the appropriate weapons to carve out their destiny.  Such was the peaceable weapon of nonviolent direct action, which materialized almost over night to inspire the Negro, and was seized in his outstretched hands with a powerful grip.

Nonviolent action, the Negro saw, was the way to supplement-not replace-the process of change through legal recourse.  It was the way to divest himself of passivity without arraying himself in vindictive force.  Acting in concert with fellow Negroes to to assert himself as a citizen, he would embark on a militant program, to demand the rights which were his: in the streets,on the buses, in the stores, the parks and other public facilities.  

The religious tradition of the Negro had shown him that the nonviolent resistance of the early Christians had constituted a moral offensive of  such overriding power that it shook the Roman Empire.  American history had taught him that nonviolence in the form of boycotts and protests had confounded the British monarchy and laid the basis for freeing the colonies from unjust domination.  Within his own century, the nonviolent ethic of Mahatma Gandhi and his followers had muzzled the guns of the British Empire in India and freed more than three hundred and fifty million people from colonialism.  

Like his predecessors, the Negro was willing to risk martyrdom in order to move and stir the social conscience of his community and the nation.  Instead of submitting to surreptitious cruelty in thousands of dark jail cells and on countless shadowed street corners, he would force his oppressor to commit his brutality openly-in the light of day-with the rest of the world looking on.  

Acceptance of nonviolent direct action was a proof of a certain sophistication on the part of the Negro masses; for it showed that they dared to break with the old, ingrained concepts of our society.  The eye-for-an-eye philosophy, the impulse to defend oneself when attacked, has always been held as the highest measure of American manhood.  We are a nation that worships the frontier tradition, and our heroes are those who champion justice through violent retaliation against injustice.  It is not simple to adopt the credo that moral force has as much strength and virtue as the capacity to return a physical blow; or that to refrain from hitting back requires more will and bravery than the automatic reflexes of defense...

To the Negro of 1963... it had become obvious that nonviolence could symbolize the gold badge of heroism rather than the white feather of cowardice.  In addition to being consistent with his religious precepts, it served his need to act on his own for his own liberation.  It enabled him to transmute hatred into constructive energy, to seek not only to free himself but to free his oppressor from his sins.  This transformation, in turn, had the marvelous effect of changing the face of the enemy.  The enemy the Negro faced became not the individual who had oppressed him but the evil system which permitted that individual to do so.  (Why We Can't Wait. Martin Luther King, Jr., published 1963: Harper and Row.  pp. 36-38.)

I fear what is getting lost in all this is just how radical this movement was.  Perhaps because it was effective, and the victors write the history books, it's easy to look back on that time and think there was a clarity then that is hard to see in today's conflicts.  'Whites only' facilities?  Open prevention of black votes?  NOT LETTING THEM SIT AT A LUNCH COUNTER?  There isn't any thing to defend there, is there.  It may be easy to believe with 20/20 hindsight that nonviolent action was not merely the most honorable choice, but also the most effective.  It's important to remember that at the time, this movement was considered by many to be dangerous, subversive, or hopelessly naive.  I take great heart in the fact that they remained committed, not because they saw it as the most effective response, but because they saw it first as the most respectful of human dignity, theirs and that of their opponents.  

First Few Days of Vacation

So I am grabbing a slow time in my college library; it stays open during most of the break, even though only a handful of international students are still on campus. This still my favorite library in the world, the one against which all others are measured... and today I got the 'visitors' computer with the good keyboard... After all the worry about getting out of my apartment, let alone to Newark, the trip from door to door was as painless as any I've experienced. It's always nice flying out, because the complicated part of the trip (take a subway, take a train or bus, carry all the luggage) happens at the beginning of the trip. At the other end someone is waiting to pick me up in the car, and I get to start the visit with 40 minutes of private time with one member of my family. This time it was Mom, and we drove back by way of National Rd (US 40), so as to avoid all the enormous trucks on 70. It meant we also had to deal with drifting snow and a two lane highway, but it worked 0ut well, and I got to see stars almost immediately, and the open farmland studded with copses of trees. It's this austere beauty I look forward to when I'm here. Lots of my friends have trouble understanding why I love it so. I wonder if one has to be born here to appreciate it fully.

My brother James was picking up Dad at the Cincinnati airport at the same time. Dad was on his way home from Rome, the show-off. After he retired from teaching, Dad became the clerk of the American Friends Service Committee, a peace and social action organization. In the 50's the AFSC won a Nobel Peace Prize, which means it is now allowed to send a representative to a conference of Nobel Peace Prize winners that meets this time every year. Gorbachov is the founder. This trip, highlights for Dad was getting a bear hug from Gorby, and helping Christy Brinkley find the ladies room. Gives you an idea of how much ground this conference tries to cover, no? He said George Clooney spoke, and was actually pretty impressive, no grand-standing or melodrama, just clear, sensible talk about Africa. Nice to hear, I like Clooney. At another session, one of the panelists was the Dalai Llama; in response to one question he said "nothing to say," then proceeded to speak for a long time. It was fun though, Dad said, he was funny and charming, but at one point he said "look, we all know we only have one life to live," and Dad thought, wait a minute; the Dalai Llama thinks he only has one life to live? Doesn't that present him with some problems? Dad never got to clarify this, but that's probably for the best.

I could feel pressure due to the fact that my increasingly frail 73 year old father does more globe trotting and activism than I do, but I guess I should appreciate having him set the bar high. I'm proud of him, as you can tell from my bragging no doubt, and feel lucky that everyone in the family is on the same page when it comes to politics. That helps cut down on holiday drama, I'm sure.

The family insists Fang never makes as much of a fuss over others as she does over me; they're convinced she counts me as part of the pack. Maybe I have the right scent. They claim she always spends a few days after I leave wandering around the house looking for me. Whether any of it is true or not, she definitely makes me feel very welcomed. Dogs are good for the soul. She cracks me up. When we let her off the leash she run joyfully, when it's time to get back on she races up to us joyfully, then she chews her treat with such gusto one just feels all is right with the world, as long as one is lucky enough to have a dog biscuit. I think she is often the best leaven for my mom's sometime somber moods.

The quiet, nurturing pace of life here is wonderful, but doesn't make for good stories just yet, and I'm supposed to be getting off the computer now anyway. I think I may have a blogging addiction... going this long without writing, and even less time without catching up on all of you (which I did yesterday) makes me wonder if I have a bit of an addiction.... but I DON'T CARE. I miss more regular (and unpressured) time checking in with everyone... hope you're all easing into a festive, fun time.

Finished with the War

A Soldier's Declaration

"I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority, because I believe the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this war, upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them, and that, had this been done, the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the suffering of the troops, and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust.

I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now I make this protest against the deception which is being practised on them; also I believe that I may help to destroy the callous complacence with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share, and which they have not sufficient imagination to realize."

Pretty powerful stuff, huh? Seems like an eloquent and succinct response to our present wars by someone in a position to speak with authority, doesn't it? Does it come as a surprise to anyone that this was written in 1917? (Yes, I realize the photo may have tipped you off.) Siegfried Sassoon was an English soldier and poet fighting in WWI, the Great War, the War to End All Wars. This declaration was even read in the House of Commons. WWI has not quite taken on the aura of romance and nobility that WWII has, but its image has gotten a bit rosey over the years. It's good to have records like this from the time.

Maybe there aren't exact corrollaries on every count. Our government, for example, has been quite good at giving clear, even simplistic statements about the purposes of this war, it just has also felt perfectly free to change those purposes whenever it likes. Sassoon's theory that clear goals would make it impossible to change them hasn't proven true in our case. I don't know if that's because it would have never been true, or because we are simply a different culture somehow, more jaded perhaps about the lies of politicians. Nor do I fully understand his statement about not criticizing the conduct of the war, unless what he means is his complaints are directed at the government, not the military. There might be some similarities there to our situation, Abu Graib and Black Water aside.

Lest I appear to be presenting this solely as an earnest yet smug inditement of our leaders, Sassoon's last statement comes as a dash of cold water to my own face. How much am I part of that callous, complacent majority lacking the imagination to understand the agonies overseas? I need to think about my own actions as much or more than anything else.

If you enjoy historical fiction, I can't recommend Pat Barker's WWI Trilogy highly enough; the books are Regeneration, The Eye in the Door, and The Ghost Road. The books follow Dr. William Rivers, a real person who was one of the first British Freudian Psycho-analysts. (On a side note, he was also the older brother of the little girl who inspired the Alice Stories of Lewis Carroll. ) Rivers was enlisted by the British government to treat soldiers suffering from 'neurasthenia', which seems to be a fancy term for shell-shock, and might today be called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. His orders were to do all he could to return the soldiers to active duty. Sassoon was a decorated soldier with many acts of heroism to his name, so when he made this statement public, the army decided he must of course be suffering from a mental breakdown so they packed him off to Dr. Rivers' hospital.

If you're fearing that reading these books would be one long punishing slide into despair, let me try to reassure you. Yes, many things of a horrific nature are dealt with in the books, as they would have to be, but they are fast moving, eloquent, even funny books full of well-realized characters, believable relationships, and from what I understand, rich historical details. I've read the entire series at least twice, and last night at 3am found myself picking up Regeneration again, which opens with Sassoon's declaration. They're well worth it, if this topic or kind of writing appeals to you at all.

Randomness, Cause I'm Like That

After hearing a well-known Republican pundit address an audience at the college where she teaches, one Dr. Mary Lacey, Professor of English said:

"Ann Coulter is Anna Nicole Smith with a library card."

God, I love my sister.

***************************************************************************************

As I came up from the subway today, there were three teenage Latino boys standing by the railing. One of them said:

"Man, you'd think the cookies would of worked, or the hot guys, but I think she's turning into a lesbian."

Really wonder what's in those cookies.

Talking Points

In the most recent edition of the Advocate, there was an article written by financial planners Joe Kapp and Nick Burkholder, looking at some of the specific federal privileges married couples enjoy – over 1100 of them– that at present are unavailable to same-sex couples. They chose to focus on the five biggest inequalities, and offer ways to minimize the damage. I realize that my readers – both of you– are probably already firmly in the choir on this particular issue, but I found the article illuminating; much of it was news to me. The specific examples bring a concrete reality to the issues involved. Hearing the number 1138 may sound bad, but it doesn't have quite the same zing as these detailed descriptions. I also thought it might help to show what some of the privileges of marriage are for straight couples, since I think all too often the people who enjoy them do so in ignorance, albeit quite innocently. So I share the info with you, for the next time you’re faced with someone asking "so, why do gay people even WANT to get married?" (I’ve heard this question more than once, bet some of you have too.). It’s long, but I think it’s worth it. Stealing the format as well as the information from the article, I’ll explain the problem, show the solutions Kapp and Burkholder recommend, then I may add a translation or two if I see fit. I’ll try not to be too snotty.

Shut up, okay?

Taxation of Domestic-Partner benefits. I already knew same-sex couples weren’t allowed to file joint federal taxes (nor state taxes, except for a few places), but this was a new wrinkle I didn’t know about. More and more companies are choosing on their own to offer domestic partner benefits, i.e, they’re providing their gay employees with the same benefits their straight ones already enjoy. This is way cool, don’t misunderstand me, BUT... the IRS sees this as taxable income, when a same-sex couple is involved. Health insurance, long term care, all benefits the partner receives gets treated as income, subject to taxes. For straight married couples, it doesn’t. It's that simple.

Their solution. Kapp and Burkholder suggest that before you add your partner to your company’s benefit plan, you discuss the process with the HR department about the problem and ways to minimize it. They also encourage you to lobby for the Tax Equity for Health Plans Beneficiaries Act of 2007, which is pending in Congress.

Translation. There is only so much you can do, and you’re highly dependent on your HR’s knowledge, goodwill, and support in the matter. Or you had better learn all the ins and outs of the tax code yourself, before taking any steps. Lobbying is good though, and it’s nice to know something is in the works to address this problem. In the short term however, minimizing the damage is the best you can hope for.

No Federal Pension or Social Security Survivorship Benefits. You may have heard about this one in relation to the death of Gerry Studds, Congressman from Massachusetts. He was married under state law to his partner Dean Hara, but Hara will not see one penny of the $62,000-a-year he would have received if he were just female. Or if Studds had been female. Well, you know what I mean. So okay, some wealthy guys don’t get to partake of the Congressional gravy-train like their straight colleagues do, it may be hard to muster much sympathy for that. But social security benefits? Think of all those little old people who have nothing but that to live on into their golden years. Sure, it may only allow them to eat cat-food, but it’s a trickle of money coming in each month to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Now take that away, and you have a whole lot more old folks out on the streets. Keep in mind too that gays and lesbians are statistically far less likely to have family to care for them in their old age, compared to straight folks.

Their solution. They recommend buying a live insurance policy to replace whatever you might have received from the government, if you were in a straight marriage.

Translation. there is no solution. Find other means of saving for retirement, this one won’t be there. (Obviously you will be able to receive your OWN social security benefits and government pensions, at least as long as SS is still in existence.)

No Unlimited Gift Giving Between Partners. Financial transfers between married straight couples is untaxed, no limit on amounts, nothing. It’s presumed that if you’re married, you share a household, you share expenses, you pool your income and other resources. Same-sex couples? Everybody now... it’s taxed. You can transfer funds up to $12,000 a year from one partner to the other, but after that, it’s taxed. What this means in practical terms is that if one partner spends more on something that is shared between the two of them, the IRS considers that a gift and taxes it accordingly.

Their solution. Equalize payments for household and living expenses. "Be cautious about jointly held accounts," because if one partner deposits a lot of money, and the other one uses it, it’s gonna get taxed.

Translation. Okay I may be wrong about some of these specifics... but one thing I see right off the bat is that same-sex couples can forget about the idea of one partner staying home to care for the kids, unless the couple makes sure that the stay-at-home parent never gets more than $12,000 a year. Frankly I think becoming involved with someone significantly outside your income range is going to be risky. "Be cautious about jointly-held accounts"? Seems to me you’d be better of not even trying to hold one, though I’d love to believe I’m overreacting with that. Still, their solution doesn’t seem to solve much, especially not for those couples with widely disparate incomes.

No Unlimited Marital Deduction for Gay Couple’s Estates. I knew this one oddly enough, but that didn’t lessen the outrage. With straight couples, the deceased spouse’s assets will pass to the surviving spouse without being taxed by the feds. For same sex couples, any amount over $2 million can be taxed up to 45%. When I read this, I thought, poor babies, two million isn’t enough, but the authors say it’s a surprisingly easy amount to exceed because all assets, including "life insurance, retirement funds, investments, and business assets" just to name a few, get included in the count.

Their solution. Here again, the best they can offer is to minimize the damage, don’t expect to avoid it. They advise you to get expert advice and "properly structure all assets to pass from one partner to the other on death."

Translation. Pay someone else a lot of money to see to it that you lose just part of what you would have lost without the help. Ignore the seething rage you feel about the fact that straight couples won’t think about this shit at all, it won’t even occur to them, and they’ll still get to keep more than you.

Inheritance Taxes on the State Level. Obviously this varies from state to state, but in many cases, what the feds don’t get, the state governments will. In many places, if you’re not legally family, an inheritance tax will accrue. The authors provide the examples of Maryland (10%) and Pennsylvania (15%). And as the authors say, "this is yet another area where heterosexual married couples have less or nothing to worry about."

Their solution. When you retire, move someplace that doesn’t impose these sorts of taxes. Okay, cool, you could actually avoid it all together. Two places they mention are Florida or South Dakota. Probably not an exhaustive list. At least I hope to god it’s not.

Translation: I have no major snarky response to add to this. Sure, having to move just to avoid taxes is a pain, and not everyone wants to move upon retirement, preferring to stay near their community, and familiar surroundings, but plenty of people do move (undoubtedly this is partly why Florida is someplace that doesn’t impose this tax.)

It will come as no surprise to you that the subject of same-sex marriage is a hot button issue even within the queer communities. Some folks say being queer is freedom from the straight hegemony, so why would we want to saddle ourselves with an institution that is obviously falling apart even for its intended population (more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce in this country). I find this objection a little silly. No one is going to MAKE you get married if you don’t want to. If being a sexual outlaw is so important to you, trust me, wear your assless chaps in public and you’ll get just the reaction you were looking for. Besides, plenty of straight people go into some wild terrain when it comes to sex; few, if any fetishes are exclusive to any one group. The option to marry hasn’t prevented Jack Nicholson from running around pantsless when the urge strikes. I don’t think this concern is legitimate.

Other queer communities say this is a concern that has eaten up way too much time and resources of all the major organizations, and is merely an attempt of rich white (male) queers to get the one final little privilege they are lacking. I understand this accusation, and certainly looking at the problems listed above, it could easily be interpreted as a whole lot of privileged folks (they HAVE health benefits? More than $2 mil in assets? Are able to share over $12,000 a year?) complaining that they’re not getting everything coming to their straight friends and colleagues. I understand this feeling, but I think it’s short-sighted. Okay, so maybe if Biff is unable to leave his beloved Denny the estate without Denny having to give up the Summer home in the Hamptons, it’s hard to feel sorry for him. But these laws were designed to protect couples, and above all, families, and and I think they're often quite effective. Let’s imagine a Latina couple who have been together for twenty years, own a small house, are raising children together, and struggle each month to stretch their two incomes to meet their bills. One of them dies unexpectedly. The survivor, in the midst of her grief, now is also faced with wondering how she is going to replace the income her partner provided. Without that income, she could lose the house, just for starters. Had she married a man, she'd be getting his pension, and would have inherited the house and estate tax-free. The lack of these privileges could easily mean she and her kids end up on the streets.

I know this is a really long post, and hell, I didn’t even do most of the writing, I just stole it from someone else, but I think this information deserves to be disseminated as widely as possible. Marriage is not just weddings, it’s not just some moony-eyed declaration of undying love (with or without divine aid). It’s a legal arrangement with very real privileges that have consequences for people. And yes, the word is privileges, not rights. Sure the g/l/b/t communities are still struggling for lots of rights as well. But protecting relationships and families would go a long way to helping in that fight.

source:
The Advocate Report
Your Money: Top five Financial Inequalities for Gay CouplesThe Advocate, June 19th, 2007, p. 20

Some Ideas for The Mayor

Dear Bloomie,

I'm delighted to read about your growing interest in ecological issues, so I thought you would be a good person to tell my idea to. Because my union halls and credit union are all smack in the middle of Times Square, I've been spending a lot of time down there during daylight hours, and it occurred to me that it might be really cool if once, for a twenty four hour period, all the neon, all the electrically enhanced advertizing, all the giant Katie Couric heads looming over the area might be turned off. All of them. During daylight this might not look like much (though we might be pleasantly surprised) but I bet the dramatic impact at night would be spectacular. I have to look more closely next time I'm in the area to make sure there are still street lights, I'm not advocating a crime spree in the area (just curious, how did it work during the blackout of 2003, I wasn't in town), but as long as there are still street lights, we'd end up just going from neon, surface-of-the-sun brightness to normal city night. Maybe to get the maximum effect from the moment, the signs should all be turned off after dark, kept off through the next day, then allowed to come back on the following evening.

I don't know how much money this would actually save. I don't know who would benefit directly either, since I assume each business pays the electric bill for its own signs. I'm sure also that some advertizing firms would get their corporate knickers in a twist over this, saying they paid for x number of days of wretched excess, and by god, they better get x number of days, but couldn't they just get an extra day? Couldn't the non-lit day not count?

I realize too that a lot of those ginormous signs are probably fluorescent lights to begin with, which of course cost less to run than incandescent, but even if the money and carbon dioxide saved wasn't enormous (and come on, it's not going to be slight, is it), I think the emotional and visual impact would be. Just having the whole area suddenly go dark, it could be a huge promotional stunt. I bet if you asked, Al would be delighted to get involved as well.

In fact, I suggest combining this with another idea I've had for some time. I don't know if you've spent any time in Copenhagen, Boulder, CO, or Ithaca, NY, but all three cities have walking streets and they're really cool. I mean really. So why not shut down a stretch of one of the avenues, and turn it into a walking street for that twenty-four hour period? Again, I think the area that would have the best impact would be Broadway between, say, 50th St. and 30th St. I realize this may cause all kinds of hassles, probably extra police attention, etc, but come on, you do that sort of thing over much greater stretches of road several times a year. Would it really be worse than the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade? The Puerto Rican Day Parade? Gay Pride? I don't know if 5th Ave is better for this sort of thing for some reason, I don't mean to tell you your job, but a twenty block radius, even just ten, from 50th to 40th, would be really amazing and at Broadway it would include the greatest number of theatres. I was down in the area for a play on the Saturday of Memorial Day weekend, and let's be honest, many of those side streets all but become walking streets as it is, since the crowds are so huge. Frankly I think this would probably be easier to control than most parades, because there you have to control the crowds and allow for floats to move down the center. This would simply be closing the road to cars and taxis; maybe some special arrangement could be made for public buses, but again, what sorts of arrangements does the average parade require? Combining these two events really would make a huge impact in terms of cutting back on emissions, and it would create a festival atmosphere, without adding tents or stands. I suppose you could do that too, if you wanted to, but just having those area restaurants, theatres and other businesses open, I bet they would do huge business. Maybe you could allow the restaurants to seat people outside, thus increasing their business, and the festive, out-door feeling of the event as a whole.

I realize there must be lots about this sort of thing that I don't know, but as I keep pointing out, street festivals and parades happen in different parts of the city all the time. This would be taking some of the most congested areas of the city in terms of pedestrians and vehicles, and letting the pedestrians have full run of the place, just for a day. To be honest, I think one of the avenues should be turned into a permanent walking street (I figure 9th Avenue would be the least disruptive), but I know that reveals what a whacked-out tree hugger I am. Yes, I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of Times Square as it is. Seriously, if you added just a few signs in Japanese and some flying cars, you'd have the city of Blade Runner, and I don't mean that as a compliment . I mean, great movie, but I wouldn't want to live there, would you? I would love it too if incentives were provided for signmakers to return to older, less technologically demanding forms of catching the eye. At Broadway and 50th, the Snapple sign makes use of a technique I fell in love with when I first saw it in Dublin. Words are posted permanently, then the rest of the sign is covered with little metallic tags on hooks. When the wind blows, which of course it does constantly, the tags ripple and the light and color of the sign changes. Just on the basis of this alone, I'm more inclined to buy Snapple (except that it's overpriced sugar water with no legitimate claims for nutrition). Conversely, at Broadway and 46th, the Bank of America sign is so huge and covered with bulbs, anytime I'm waiting for a light to change on that corner, I wonder if I'm going to get a migraine. Seriously. And I haven't had one in over twenty years (see, my Mom and I each learned this great biofeedback technique that is supposed to get rid of migraines when they come, and we both found it seemed to cure us permanently of them, which is really cool, I can teach it to you if you want sometime, assuming you get migraines, though I should admit the same technique didn't seem to work for my sister, so maybe it's not fool proof...), but that sign, yowtch. Makes me adamant never to do any business with Bank of America. Okay, but I'm getting ahead of myself, am I not? These are long term goals, and I really want to focus just on this one day. One thing at a time, right?

So please, give this some thought. I bet it would garner you and the city all kinds of positive attention, would bring even more people to the area, and probably generate a huge profit without too many out-of -pocket expenses in advance for anyone. Just think about it, and let me know how I can help.

Regards,

Patrick

Rise Above

I imagine everyone has heard that Jerry Falwell died yesterday. All the queer-lovin', pinko commie lefty blogs I read made mention of it. Surprise, no one was too broken-up about it. In the blog entries themselves and their accompanying comments, people acknowledged they were not sorry to see him go. There was lots of speculation about what part of hell he was now inhabiting, and who his cellmates are. A certain number looked forward to dancing or spitting on his grave. There was in fact, a distinctly celebratory air. Then, as is usually the case in these situations, some voices called this tone unseemly. "A man has died," more than one person said, "his family is no doubt grief-stricken. It is cruel, ugly, and gives us homos a bad name to be crowing like this over someone else's suffering."

Okay, I see no benefit to rubbing salt in the wounds his loved ones are no doubt presently suffering. I would, however, like to point out that crowing over the suffering of others was one of Falwell's favorite pasttimes. Here, stolen from Joe.My.God. are a few choice quotations from this good Christian Leader.

- "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."-

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers."-

"(9/11 is the result of) throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."

(Falwell did end up apologizing for this last comment, but I don't think he actually changed his mind about it, he just recognized he'd alienated more people than he wanted to. I'm not letting him off the hook for it.)

Because I found the man's actions loathsome, hateful and irresponsible, I'm not interested in playing his game. I don't need to dance on his grave. I choose not to because I think it's beneath me, though, not because of any reverence for him.

I don't know that his death really changes much. Maybe without his leadership, his fellow hatemongers will lose some momentum or political clout, but the view he spoke for isn't going anywhere just because he's dead. I still believe that firm demands for our civil rights combined with a conciliatory effort to alleviate others' ignorant prejudices is the best way forward. Crowing over someone's death doesn't really help our cause, and has us emulating some of his ugliest actions. Without scolding anyone who does feel like having a party, I am choosing not to indulge, for now.

Nonetheless, I too have to say I will not shed a tear over the death of this vicious, judgemental, hidebound hypocrite, a man who celebrated the suffering of millions, called for several more millions to die (including yours truly), and danced on as many graves as he could.

Evening with Capote

Hello, and welcome to my head. Or at least the parts I share with guests. It's nice to have you here.

I'm tempted to establish a mission for this blog, but the fact is, I've just started reading blogs myself, and felt like joining the party. Maybe if this ends up being more than one entry, I'll see a grand manifesto forming, but for now, I'm just going to write down the things that are rattling around in my head. I'm assuming anyone reading this is a friend of mine (until I take over the internet), and what you'll find here is the sort of stuff I used to subject you to in my emails, causing many of you to feel perhaps just the teensiest bit overwhelmed. With any luck, this will help me get things out of my system, and allow you the option to read or ignore them, at your leisure, with no pressing sense that you have to reply. Such a deal, huh? So, this is my first entry.

Last week I saw the movie Capote. For the record I highly recommend it; I think it's a compelling story well told, from writing to acting. If reading about movies before you see them ruins them for you, then you might want to skip the rest of this. In the past I have shared elements of a film that I thought were mere details ("and then, the ship sinks!") or common knowledge, only to discover that I had just spoiled a movie for a friend. So, I'm just saying.

Still with me? Okay, like I said, I thought the movie was terrific, but I found myself watching with a strange sense of dread for most of it. It took me a while to identify the source. I knew early in the movie that I didn't much care for Capote himself. Philip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful, he deserves his Golden Globe and SAG award, it's not that, I mean I didn't like person. This isn't too surprising. He's portrayed as an emotional vampire, charming and seducing anyone who has something he wants, lying through his teeth as needed, taking advantage of people's vulnerabilities in his drive to create his book. Hell, he all but promises to save the lives of guys on death row, how low do you have to go?

So there's that.

Then there's his snobbery. He unabashedly embodies the East Coast Intellectual, and he does it in exactly the ways that tends to make the rest of the country hate that person. He's openly condescending, frequently contemptuous of people's feelings, and more than once we see him laughing at people behind their backs, ridiculing them for their earnestness or naivete. For some reason I can handle it when someone ridicules pomposity or arrogance, but it really bothers me when simplicity or innocence is the butt of the joke. Yes, he turns his wit on himself sometimes too, and there are clearly times when his connection with others is sincere and heartfelt, but too often I felt I was seeing a master manipulator in action, whose only concerns were to finish his damn book, solidify his fame, and have hilarious stories to share at parties.

I'd say none of this is particularly insightful, it is in fact the story I think we are meant to see. So why did I watch it with a pit in my stomach? By the end I had it figured out; I felt personally responsible for Capote's behavior. I believed his actions reflected on me.

I'm sorry, what? Yeah, I know. But I did. I felt at some level that society at large would identify him and me as members of the same tribe, not just by being gay, but also by living in New York, working in the arts, caring passionately about words, and books. The fact is I feel just as alien (or just as native) in that world as I do in the midwestern town where I grew up (Red State big time), Seattle, or even Dublin. I tend to feel like a fish out of water most places frankly. But somehow I knew that most people, especially the good Kansas folk portrayed in the movie, would have seen me as a bird of Capote's feather, making his bad behavior my responsibility.

Obviously this discovery was all it took for me to get over it. But I realized that trigger, the desire not to be aligned with 'bad' homosexuals, is still a part of my make-up. And it's not evil gays, really. I didn't feel this way about Matt Damon's murderous Tom Ripley, or Jude Law's criminally spoiled Bosie. Why did Capote trigger it? Is it just because he was a fussy, effeminate, neurotic, needy, selfish little man? Would I have cut him some slack if he didn't have that VOICE?

Internalized homophobia, anyone?

But this revelation wasn't the only one I had about the character of Truman Capote. East Coast liberal intellectual snob... that started to sound familiar. Then it hit me; this was how George W. Bush painted John Kerry in the 2004 elections. Despite having virtually the same pedigree and education, despite being a draft dodger to Kerry's war hero, GWB turned Kerry into TRUMAN CAPOTE. And the sad thing is, Kerry bought into it. He made certain to be photographed skiing, wind-surfing, tried to talk about sports, he accepted the premise of the assertion, and just set about denying it.

Is this what cost him the election? I don't know. I doubt it. And let's not forget, he lost the election by a hair, no matter how much GWB wants to believe he received a mandate. But it seems clear to me that the spectre of the effeminate homosexual is still looming over the American male, and the pressures to avoid identifying with him are coming from all sides. It's an interesting time where some forces are enraged by the 'raping of the Marlboro Man' in the form of Brokeback Mountain, while others of us (or is it just me) are still apologizing for the fussy Queen.